What's the Deal with cheap zoom lenses?

Hi,

I got my new D2X with the 24-85 f2.8 lens, I like it.

Now I want a hight zoom lens. one that goes upto 210 or 300.

I noticed that there are really cheap ones, ~$99 - $200

and also expensive ones. ~$1200

the Question is, If I got the cheap lens would it be usefull, or totally
worthless?

and what's the main thing that makes the other lens so expensive?

best regards
MR.B

 

From what I understand, zoom lenses are cheaper due to the method in
which they are produced. (Of which I'm not exactly certain. ^.^)

You really don't want to go cheap when it comes to lenses. I wouldn't
anyway if that means anything.

Quality of the glass and make of a lense will definately increase the
price. But prices also vary between zoom, telephoto and fixed lens
types.

I normally wouldn't suggest zoom unless you are really going to need
it. Some say you loose quality using zoom lenses but honestly I'm new
to photography so I can't tell you that from experience.

Hope this helps a little.

 

you get what you pay for. the general issue surround the cost of lenses is
their speed or maximim aperature. As the focal length of a lens increases it
gets quite costly to produce one that is fast. the cheap lenses you see are
probable at f/5.6 or f/8 or so. the really high cost ones might get you down to
f/2.8...in other words: go cheap and you need really fast film and/or lots of
light.

--
There are no interpersonal problems that cannot be solved with a
suitable application of the laws of chemistry.

-anything after the next line is ANNOYING CRAP that newsfeeds adds-
-directly contact newsfeeds and ISPs that piggy back them to complain-

 

Well, like most other electronics, you tend to get what you pay for. Why
would anyone buy that $1400 Canon "L" lens, after all, if they could get the
exact equivalent for a quarter of the price? The answer is that the
equivalent isn't available for a quarter of the price; the quality will be
inferior.

Quality of glass and build. To you, the shooter, that translates to
sharper, better saturated images. I started with the stock lens on my Canon
D-SLR, but once I bought my first "L" lens, the difference was like night
and day, and I never used the stock lens again. I simply couldn't.

All of which is not to say you have to spend oodles of money to get a good
lens. You won't get the best, but you can still get a good, perfectly
acceptable lens for an affordable price. But if you go bottom of the barrel
in price, that's likely what you'll get in quality too. If you can't afford
the best, aim for the middle. Don't aim for the bottom, because chances are
it'll just make you angry when the lens doesn't perform worth a damn.

 

You put cameras on lenses not the other way around.

The lens is, in my opinion, the number one factor.. f/2 lenses with
low dispersion glass just make razor sharp images.

I have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 that I use sometimes I think it cost me about
$200 I spent almost $1500 on a prime 300mm f/4 L IS USM & a 1.4x For
wildlife the 75-300 stays at home... It's okay for close up people shots
but if you want excellent detail go with a fast, low dispersion glass...

Image Quest Photography
www.imagequest.com

 

I understand your point but have to mention that you don't strictly need a lens
to take a picture...ever use a pinhole camera? you can get a nice crisp image
with a small enough hole and a long enough exposure.


--
There are no interpersonal problems that cannot be solved with a
suitable application of the laws of chemistry.

-anything after the next line is ANNOYING CRAP that newsfeeds adds-
-directly contact newsfeeds and ISPs that piggy back them to complain-

 

Lenses are an odd sort of beast, a sharp long lens is fairly easy to
design and produce, as long as you can live with a fairly large f
number. Wider angle lenses start to get tougher to do and simply going
to larger f number does not make it all that much easier. With a long
lens you are mainly fighting spherical and chromatic aberration,
spherical aberration gets worse as the cube of the lens diameter, so
going to a large f number make things better in a hurry. Chromatic
aberration is very much misunderstood, in large part due to the
marketing efforts of any number of camera companies. You don't need
low dispersion glass to make a lens with low chromatic aberrations, the
low dispersion glass does make it cheaper to make a lens with low
chromatic aberrations.

Both of these photos were taken with a $210 Sigma 70-300 zoom lens
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_7248.jpg
http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_7253.jpg
BTW both photos were taken with a 20D

No this is not my sharpest lens and to get to this level I have to
shoot at f10 or more. But both of these photos would make very sharp 8
x 10 prints.

A better lens would allow me to shot with a more open aperture and
would be a bit sharper then what I got above, but you can get decent
photos even with a cheap lens. But I was already fighting DOF and so
would not have opened the aperture in any event.

BTW I don't mind if someone posts saying my photos are soft as long
as they post one of their photos full resolution.

These photos (about 900 for the day) were mostly for a web page and the
local paper, neither one of which came close to needing the resolution
that I was getting much less the resolution I might have gotten with an
L lens.

So look at my photos, I would not say the $210 lens is worthless.

Scott

 

: Mr.B wrote:
: > Hi,
: >
: > I got my new D2X with the 24-85 f2.8 lens, I like it.
: >
: > Now I want a hight zoom lens. one that goes upto 210 or 300.
: >
: > I noticed that there are really cheap ones, ~$99 - $200
: >
: > and also expensive ones. ~$1200
: >
: > the Question is, If I got the cheap lens would it be usefull, or totally
: > worthless?
: >
: > and what's the main thing that makes the other lens so expensive?
: >
: > best regards
: > MR.B
: Lenses are an odd sort of beast, a sharp long lens is fairly easy to
: design and produce, as long as you can live with a fairly large f
: number. Wider angle lenses start to get tougher to do and simply going
: to larger f number does not make it all that much easier. With a long
: lens you are mainly fighting spherical and chromatic aberration,
: spherical aberration gets worse as the cube of the lens diameter, so
: going to a large f number make things better in a hurry. Chromatic
: aberration is very much misunderstood, in large part due to the
: marketing efforts of any number of camera companies. You don't need
: low dispersion glass to make a lens with low chromatic aberrations, the
: low dispersion glass does make it cheaper to make a lens with low
: chromatic aberrations.
:
: Both of these photos were taken with a $210 Sigma 70-300 zoom lens
: http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_7248.jpg
: http://www.sewcon.com/photos/IMG_7253.jpg
: BTW both photos were taken with a 20D
:
: No this is not my sharpest lens and to get to this level I have to
: shoot at f10 or more. But both of these photos would make very sharp 8
: x 10 prints.
:
: A better lens would allow me to shot with a more open aperture and
: would be a bit sharper then what I got above, but you can get decent
: photos even with a cheap lens. But I was already fighting DOF and so
: would not have opened the aperture in any event.
:
: BTW I don't mind if someone posts saying my photos are soft as long
: as they post one of their photos full resolution.
:
: These photos (about 900 for the day) were mostly for a web page and the
: local paper, neither one of which came close to needing the resolution
: that I was getting much less the resolution I might have gotten with an
: L lens.
:
: So look at my photos, I would not say the $210 lens is worthless.
:
: Scott
:

Excellent pictures. Proves there are 3 parts to camera, the lens, the body
and the person holding it!

 

You own a D2X and you don't know the difference? You pay 4.5K for a camera
and want a 100 dollar lens?

Fred

 

I've gotta' agree with Fred here. I can't praise some of my
inexpensive (read cheap) lenses enough when I'm talking to a guy like
me who wants exceptional snapshots or even really good smaller
enlargements or for use on cd's or the web. But, I'm always assuming
he/she is shooting with an entry level DSLR like my D70. I've got
every focal length down to f1.8 from 17 to 300 and nearly every level
of macro magnification covered with five lenses and and a set of
closeup lenses that I've spent less than $900 US on. I'm tickled to
death with the results and looking at my pictures is almost like
counting coup. It's great when you set out spend as little as you can
and get quality even better than you expected.

But.... you just spent around five grand for one of the el primo DSLR's
out there. Why would you even be concerned about cheap anything? If I
had that kind of money and that kind of camera, I'd be looking at
nothing but the finest glass available. I'd start with a couple VR
zooms and fill it in with the best rated primes I could find as the
funds became available. But hey, that's just an opinion. YMMV.

(I think I'm seeing a rule of thumb here? Expect to pay as much for
lenses as you did the body?)

Kitt

 

I have not hit that point yet, but I am looking at the EF-S 10-22mm
from Canon, that will do it.

For me, I would rather save some money on the telephoto lens and spend
it on the wide angle. A cheap telephoto lens can make a good photo, a
cheap wide angle will not.

Scott

 

Get the AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (2.9x zoom) -
http://nikonimaging.com/global/prod...ephoto/af-s_vr_zoom70-200mmf_28g_if/index.htm
I've heard few complaints qualitywise, though it might leave a big
hole in your pocket. And soon in mine... :-(

It's price is high because of glass quality, the VR (Vibration
Reduction) which is very addictive!, the AF-S (Silent Wave Motor)
type of silent high-speed autofocus, the large f/2.8 aperture
throughout the zoom-range, ...

Ditch the VR and the AF-S and you get the AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm
f/2.8D ED (2.5x zoom), which is optically also "up there".

If it's Nikon's prices are not for you, do consider the Sigma
alternative, APO 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG HSM - the glass is probably
just as good as the other two, but no VR:
http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/telezoom/70_200_28.htm

If you end up going down the the cheaper 70-300 road, the Sigma APO
70-300mm F4-5.6 DG MACRO (the "APO" being of importance!) should do
just nicely.

 

I think his point was rhetorical, and it's a good point to make.
You'll change camera bodies, but invest in a good line of lenses and
you'll keep them forever.

 

Somebody buys a D2x and doesn't know anything about lenses?
Must be one of those guy who couldn't foresee what would happen in Iraq
after the invasion . . .

 

Scott, is that Sigma the APO version? I have the Macro II 70-300mm (non-APO)
and it's no where near that sharp.
grol

 

When speaking about lens prices, I think the original poster should
also know something about flare; I have a Minolta 70-210/4 and the
Sigma 70-300/4-5,6 (the APO version) and the difference is HUGE...


Ciao
Enrico

 

OMG you mean he works at the white house?

Scott

 

Hmmm, I am sure folks would really love to see a list of these cheap but
good quality lenses. I know without a shadow of a doubt that I have an
extremely uncanny ability to make the wrong choice. Things like opening up
toolboxes and camera cases up-side down by accident only to watch in horror
and self loathing when all my stuff spills out all over the ground.

 

Reminds me of that hilarious cartoon where they are bombing bin-ladin and
he's standing there saying "Wow! I didn't think they would get this angry!"

 

Raises hand. Yes, I bought one too, and I don't know diddly about lenses.